Software-Designed PACs: Think Subroutine, Not Sub-Controllers

Today’s controls engineers face pressure to simplify system complexity as they are tasked with increasingly complex problems. Unfortunately, solutions to these challenges are difficult to define; so overall market trends are discussed in an attempt to distill escalating complexity. Motors, once viewed as large pieces of iron that would last for decades, are now monitored and scrutinized for the earliest signs of failure or the slightest hint of efficiency loss. Control inputs to cutting tools have evolved from the binary “cut or stop cutting” approach to complex vision-guided force-feedback schemes that detect media edges, density, and respond with the precise amount of cutting force. These examples support the real need to integrate commercial technology to keep pace with both market pressures and increasingly complex control problems.

Fortunately, commercial technology continues to advance for control designers. Some of the latest silicon technologies combine floating-point processing cores, FPGA fabric, and DSP slices on a single chip. When integrated into programmable automation controller (PAC) technology, these processing elements help control designers to collapse advanced machine subsystems into a more simple architecture.

This may sound a bit foreign to control designers more familiar with ladder logic than logic gates, but all PACs, PLCs, and embedded controllers contain processing elements. Many contain FPGAs or ASICs used for signal processing and timing. These different processing elements are analogous to different types of hammers. The tool aisle at the local hardware store has a wealth of hammer options, and whether building a house or a control system, it’s critical to use the right tool for the job. PC-based automation is like the general-purpose claw hammer -- versatile enough for most applications, but too harsh to properly function as a dead blow mallet, too light to act as a sledge, and too small to serve as a good framing hammer. For a broad range of applications the standard floating-point processor is ideal though it falls short when high-speed timing, triggering, or low latency is needed. Floating-point processors can also be used for signal and control processing; however, these are costly resources compared to an FPGA or DSP for repetitious algorithms. FPGAs, on the other hand, are ideal for processing intensive algorithms but are limited in runtime flexibility. It’s the combination of all of these processing elements that make new PACs so promising when it comes to simplifying subsystems.

At a basic level, subsystems join hardware and software to serve a specific function such as a temperature control system where the hardware inputs are temperature sensors, the outputs control a fan or heater, and the software logic for the system could range from a simple limit function to a more advanced PID algorithm. In complex machines, advanced subsystems are a separate design on a custom board that communicates back to the main controller via a cabled bus. With new PAC technology, the separate, optimized hardware design can be incorporated into a single controller. This helps simplify machines with fewer controllers, which makes it possible to achieve a faster time to market at a lower design cost. Subsystems in machines are abstracted as software blocks that can run on the host floating-point processor or the available FPGA/DSP resources. Instead of sub-controllers, think subroutine. Regarding the hardware, many sub-controllers already use modular I/O and the advanced capabilities of new embedded controllers help reduce the need for custom FPGA/ASIC hardware design.

Very interesting article and I think it reflects the trend in recent years to simplifying hardware by implementing software solutions, "PACs and embedded controllers using the latest hybrid processing technology can help simplify machine design by shifting the architecture from several unique PACs/PLCs with custom designs to fewer, more consolidated, software-designed controllers." Transferring the design to software has tremendous advantages regarding the ability to modify a design and also is more cost-effective in most cases. I love PLCs and being an IEEE/GPIB programmer back in the day - I love computer control, but I also see the benefit of consolidating resources and having a centralized and universal method of control without added complexity and bulk.

A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.

It won't be too much longer and hardware design, as we used to know it, will be remembered alongside the slide rule and the Karnaugh map. You will need to move beyond those familiar bits and bytes into the new world of software centric design.

People who want to take advantage of solar energy in their homes no longer need to install a bolt-on solar-panel system atop their houses -- they can integrate solar-energy-harvesting shingles directing into an existing or new roof instead.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.